A jury сonvicted Ray Dohman of disorderly conduct. Dohman appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient tо convict him, and the disorderly conduct statute was unconstitutionally applied. Concluding neither issue was prеserved for review, we affirm.
I
On June 29, 1995, Ray Dohman, accompanied by his wife and daughter, entered United Hospital in Grand Forks and demanded to speak with the president of the hospital. Dohman was unhappy about allеgedly poor treatment his wife had received at the hospital.
The president of the hospital agreed to meet with Dohman in a conference room. Before attending the meeting, the president requеsted a security person accompany her.
According to the president’s testimony, Dohman becаme very irritated during the meeting. At certain times, Dohman raised his voice and banged his fist on the table. The president asked him to leave. As Doh-man was exiting through the lobby, he screamed, “The public needs to know that you have doctors that murder people.”
Dohman was charged with disorderly conduct in violation of Grand Forks City Code 9-0201(1), (2), (3), and (7), and requested a jury trial. 1 At the December 19, 1995, trial, Dohman represented himself. During his cross examination of the hospital president, he stated, “I admit I hit the table and it startled you.” The jury found Dohman guilty of disorderly conduct.
The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. Art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal from the district court was filed in a timely manner under N.D.R.App.P. 4(b). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const. Art. VI, § 6, and N.D.C.C. §§ 29-01-12 and 29-28-06.
II
Dohman contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him.
To'preserve an issue of sufficiency of the evidence for review in a jury trial, a defendant must move the lower court fоr a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29.
State v. Lambert,
On January 11,1995, Dohman filed a “Motion to Reverse” with the trial court. The
The motion, however, was filed after the jury returned a verdict. “The North Dakota rule does not permit a motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury returns a verdict of guilty.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 note;
State v. Tranby,
Bеcause Dohman did not move for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 until after the jury returned its verdict, the issue was not preserved for review.
Ill
Dohman contends the city ordinance, as applied to him in this ease, violates his constitutional right to free speech.
A
Our review of Dohman’s appeal is hampered by the lack of a complete transcript. “The appellant bears the burden on appeal of proving error.”
State v. Raywalt,
Where the record is incomplete, the appellant must suffer the consequences of any lack of evidence in the record before us to support his contention.
City of Fargo v. Bommersbach,
B
We find no evidence in the partial transcript or record showing this issue was raised in the trial court. “An issue not raised in the trial court is generally not reviewable by this Court unless the issue сonstitutes ‘obvious error’ under Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim.P.”
City of Bismarck v. Nassif,
C
Because Dohman did not raise the issue in the trial court, and has not shown this to be an exceptiоnal case involving obvious, serious injustice, we decline to consider the constitutionality of the ordinanсe.
IV
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Notes
. Section 9-0201 states a "person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person or in reckless disregard of the fact that another person is harassed, annоyed, or alarmed by said person's behavior, the person:
"(1) Engages in fighting, or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
"(2) Makes unreasonable noise;
"(3) In a public place, uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture;
[[Image here]]
"(7) Crеates a hazardous, physically offensive, or seriously alarming condition by an act which serves no legitimate purpose.”